• No results found

ANALYSIS OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND URBAN GREEN SPACE PERFORMANCE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "ANALYSIS OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND URBAN GREEN SPACE PERFORMANCE"

Copied!
88
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

ANALYSIS OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND URBAN GREEN SPACE PERFORMANCE

THESIS

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master Degree from University of Groningen and

the Master Degree from Institut Teknologi Bandung

by:

ERNY HAFNI RUG : S1822330

ITB : 25407027

Supervisor :

Prof. Dr. PETER HO (RuG) Dr. HOSSEIN AZADI (RuG) Ir. ROOS AKBAR, M.Sc. Ph.D (ITB)

DOUBLE MASTER DEGREE PROGRAMME

ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING FACULTY OF SPATIAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN AND

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND

POLICY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG

2009

(2)

ANALYSIS OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND URBAN GREEN SPACE PERFORMANCE

by:

ERNY HAFNI RUG : S1822330

ITB : 25407027

Double Master Degree Programme

Development Planning and Infrastructure Management Department of Regional and City Planning

Institut Teknologi Bandung And

Environmental and Infrastructure Planning Faculty of Spatial Sciences

University of Groningen

Approved Supervisors Date: August 2009

Supervisor I

Prof. Dr. PETER HO (RUG Supervisor)

Supervisor II

Dr. HOSSEIN AZADI (RUG Supervisor)

Supervisor III

Ir. ROOS AKBAR, M.Sc. Ph.D (ITB Supervisor)

(3)

i Abstract

This study is unique in a sense, as it’s among few attempts that a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative analysis is run to determine the factors that influence Urban Green Space Performance (UGSP). This study is also different from previous studies in its conceptual framework and indicators to analyze the relationship of Multi Stakeholder Involvement (MSI) and UGSP.

Urban green space projects all over the world published in international journals constitute as population in this study and the unit of analysis is limited to urban green space projects dealing with MSI in their development and management. The data was searched from three comprehensive database: ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Picarta by using the combination of keywords resulted in 29 relevant journal articles consisting of 42 urban green space projects as the case study.

Via quantitative content analysis, this study tries to analyze whether MSI always contribute to the better performance of urban green space. Furthermore, this study tries to find which internal and external factors of MSI significantly influence UGSP and explains why and how such factors give significant influence. The internal factors consist of structure (state, private, society) and roles (planning/design, implementation, maintenance, input for management and financial support) of stakeholder while external factors consist of regulation, good leadership and good financial support.

This study found that MSIs do not always contribute to a better UGSP. Based on scoring and ranking, only one cases (2.38%) constituting as excellent project (Brownfield development in Toronto). 26.19% other cases are ranked as good project, 33.33% are ranked as fair project while another 38.10% cases are ranked as poor. Some factors of MSI which significantly influence urban green space performance are state, society, implementation and regulation about green space.

However, due to context-dependent nature of planning including urban green space development and management, this lesson cannot be implemented without caution.

Keywords: urban green space, Multi Stakeholder Involvement, performance

(4)

ii PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Nowadays people start to pay more attention to their quality of life and sustainable development. Like the environmentalists point of view, human is a part of nature and should live in harmony with that. In accordance with the development of build-up area, people also try to develop more green open space particularly in urban area such as parks, green belts, urban forests etc to make our life in harmony with nature.

In these last decades there was also an increase awareness that government no longer become the single actor in development including in urban green spaces development and management. The Book “ The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs about the important and strength of urban community’s roles in preserving their environment by tending to minimize government’s intervention is inspired me to think more about the role of government and multi stakeholder involvement in urban green space development and management. As a government employee working daily at garden division, I’m interested to know: Is the role of government no longer important? Will multi actors always contribute to a better performance of urban green space?

Inspired by the research of Floress et al. in 2009 about assessing the quality of some greenways plans in North Indiana, I try to analyze the relationship of urban green space performance and multi stakeholder involvement in urban green space development and management and find what factors of the multi stakeholder involvement actually have significant influence on urban green space performance.

This master thesis is a final part of my study in Double Master Degree Programme of Environmental and Infrastructure Planning (Faculty of Spatial Science, RuG, the Netherlands) and Development Planning and Infrastructure Management (School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, ITB, Indonesia). My utmost gratitude is to Allah s.w.t for blessing me in finishing my study and this master thesis in Netherlands. I would like to give my great respect and thanks to my supervisors, Prof. Dr. Peter Ho, Dr. Hossein Azadi, Ir. Roos Akbar, M.Sc.

Ph.D for guiding me a lot in finishing this master thesis.

Many thanks are dedicated to all of my lecturers in UPT Bahasa ITB, ITB and RUG for sharing their invaluable knowledge and experiences. Thanks to Indonesian Development Board (Bappenas) and Netherlands Education Support Office (NESO) through StuNed program for giving me financial support and to Padang Panjang Local Government for allowing me to go back to school. I also thanks to all DD ITB-RuG 2008 students for being my family and giving different

(5)

iii colours in my days for the last two years. To my sensei, Widyo Pura Buana, thanks for supporting and teaching me a lot. I was blind to statistical analysis.

My great grateful to my family in Indonesia, to Ibu Hanifah Arifin, Bapak Baharuddin, Ibuk Ummiati Syarif, my young sister Erma Helfita and my young brother Iman Satria, your loves and supports mean so much for me to fight.

Groningen, August 2009

(6)

iv GUIDELINE FOR USING THESIS

The unpublished master theses are registered and available in the library of the Institut Teknologi Bandung and the University of Groningen. This document is open for the public with the regulation that the copyright is on the author by following copyright regulation prevailing at the Institut Teknologi Bandung and the University of Groningen. References are allowed to be recorded but the quotations or summarizations can only be made with the permission from the author and with the academic research regulation for the process of writing to mention the source. Reproducing and publishing some part or the whole of this thesis, can be done with permission from the Director of the Master’s Programme in the Institut Teknologi Bandung and the University of Groningen.

(7)

v ABBREVIATIONS

Anova : Analysis of Variance

CBO : Community Based Organization DW : Durbin Watson

LSD : Least Significant Difference MLR : Multiple Linear Regression MSI : Multi-stakeholder Involvement MSP : Multi-stakeholder Process NGO : Non-Government Organization FBO : Faith Based Organization

OALD : Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary

OECD : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development SPSS : Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

UGSP : Urban Green Space Performance UK : United Kingdom

VIF : Variance Inflation Factor

UNDP : United Nation Development Progamme USA : United Stated of America

(8)

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... I PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... II GUIDELINE FOR USING THESIS ... IV ABBREVIATIONS ... V TABLE OF CONTENTS ... VI LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDIXES ... VIII

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Background... 1

1.2. Problem Statement ... 3

1.3. Objective and Significance ... 3

1.4. Research Question ... 4

1.5. Thesis Structure ... 5

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7

2.1. General Perspective of Urban Green Spaces ... 7

2.2. Urban Green Space Performance ... 10

2.2.1. Some Indicators to Assess Urban Green Spaces Performance ... 11

2.3. Multi-stakeholder Involvement (MSI) ... 14

2.4. MSI and Green Space Performance ... 17

2.4.1. Some Aspects of MSI Influencing Green Space Performance ... 18

2.4.1.1. Internal Factors ... 18

2.4.1.1.1. Structure of Stakeholder in Green Space Development and Management ... 18

2.4.1.1.2. Roles of Stakeholder in Green Space Development and Management ... 20

2.4.1.2. External Factors ... 23

2.4.1.2.1. Legal Basis/Regulation ... 23

2.4.1.2.2. Good Leadership ... 24

2.4.1.2.3. Good Financial Basis ... 24

2.4.1.2.4. Capabilities of stakeholder ... 25

2.5. Conceptual Framework... 25

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ... 28

3.1. Population and Sample ... 28

3.2. Data Collection ... 28

3.3. Transforming Qualitative Data into Quantitative Measurements ... 31

3.3.1. Scoring ... 31

3.3.2. Ranking ... 34

3.4. Quantitative Analysis ... 34

3.4.1. Variables ... 34

3.4.2. Method ... 36

3.4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics ... 36

3.4.2.2. Compare Mean Analysis ... 36

3.4.2.3. Pearson Correlation ... 36

3.4.2.4. Multiple Linear Regression ... 37

3.5. Discussion ... 37

(9)

vii

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION ... 38

4.1. Data Description ... 38

4.2. Scoring and Ranking Results of UGSP ... 41

4.2.1. UGSP and Country ... 42

4.2.2. UGSP and Year of Project ... 43

4.2.3. UGSP and Types of Urban Green Spaces ... 44

4.3. Quantitative Analysis of UGSP and MSI indicators ... 45

4.3.1. Compare Mean Analysis of Green Space Performance by MSI’s indicators ... 46

4.3.3. Pearson Correlation Coefficient Between MSI’s indicators ... 48

4.3.4. Regression Analysis ... 49

4.3.4.1. Diagnostic of Assumption ... 51

4.3.4.2. Test of Hypothesis... 55

4.4. Discussion ... 57

4.4.1. Why Such Factors Significantly Influence Urban Green Space Performance ... 57

4.4.1.1. State/Government ... 57

4.4.1.2. Society ... 59

4.4.1.3. Implementation ... 60

4.4.1.4. Regulation... 62

4.4.2. How Such Factors Influence Urban Green Space Performance ... 63

4.4.2.1. State ... 63

4.4.2.2 Society ... 65

4.4.2.3. Implementation ... 66

4.4.2.4. Regulation ... 67

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 70

5.1. Conclusions ... 70

5.2. Recommendations... 71

REFERENCES ... 73

(10)

viii LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDIXES

Figure

Figure 2. 1. Structure of Stakeholder ... 19

Figure 2. 2. The Planning Design Process for Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Engineering ... 20

Figure 2. 3. Ladder of Participation ... 23

Figure 2. 4. Indicators of Urban Green Spaces Performance and MSI ... 26

Figure 3. 1. Qualitative Measures to Develop Quantitative Tools ... 28

Figure 3. 2. Sampling Process and Unit of Analysis ... 31

Figure 4. 1. Distribution Of Data Based On Geographical Category 38 Figure 4. 2 Distribution Of Urban Green Space Projects Based on The Year Of Journal Publication And The Year Of Project 39 Figure 4. 3 Distribution Of Urban Green Space Projects Based on Their Type Of Green Space 40 Table Table 3. 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: ... 30

Table 3. 2. Principles as Green Space Performance’s Indicators ... 32

Table 3. 3. Dependent and independent Variables ... 35

Table 4. 1. Green Spaces Performance ... 41

Table 4. 2 Cross-tabulation between Country and Level of Performance ... 42

Table 4. 3 Cross-tabulation Project Year and Level of Performance ... 43

Table 4. 4 Cross-tabulation Greenspace Type and Level of Performance ... 44

Table 4. 5. Distribution of MSI’s Indicators based on Codes ... 45

Table 4. 6 Mean Comparison of Green Space Performance by MSI’s indicators ... 47

Table 4. 7. Correlation Matrix of MSI’s indicators ... 49

Table 4. 8 Coefficient of Regression Analysis Using SPSS 16 ... 50

Table 4. 9. Multicolinearity Diagnostic using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) ... 52

Table 4. 10. Critical Values of the Durbin-Watson Statistic ... 53

Table 4. 11. Out put of Durbin Watson Test ... 54

Table 4. 12. Output of Durbin Watson Test in Cochrane-Orcutt ... 54

Table 4. 13. Coefficient of Regression Model Based on Cohrane-Orcutt Method ... 55

Table 4. 14. Anova of Regression using Cochrane-Orcutt estimation method ... 56

Table 4. 15 The Summary of MSI’s Indicators which Significantly Influence UGSP ... 68

Appendixes Appendix 1. List of journals and Cases... 79

Appendix 2. Scoring and Ranking of green space Performance ... 81

Appendix 3. Supporting Statement for UGSP’s scoring ... 82

Appendix 4. Quantitative Analysis ... 90

Appendix 5. Coding Urban Green Spaces Based on MSI’s Indicators ... 94

Appendix 6. Supporting Statement MSI’s Indicator’s Coding ... 95

Appendix 7. Chi-Square test ... 106

Appendix 8. SPSS Syntax of Cohrane-Orcutt Estimation Method ... 108

(11)

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

The development and management of green spaces in urban area is mostly the responsibility of the government. On the current issue of green space development and management, there is a tendency that the government is no longer the single agent. “The state is a big force for development - but it is not the only one”

(UNDP, 2004). Erickson (2006) in Smith (2007) argued that “rarely, if ever, the initiator of open space project is its sole implementer” (p.4). A comparative study about development and management of green spaces in 26 European cities by Baycant et al., (2002) suggest that “a collaborative and enable partnership among local authorities, local business and voluntary groups should be formed”

(p.10) to improve the quality of urban green spaces. This kind of collaboration can be regarded as Multi-stakeholder Involvement (MSI) in urban green space development and management. Furthermore, (Smith, 2007) argued that in other policy areas (instead of open spaces), increased collaboration and networking will give a positive effect on performance and according to Smith it will also be relevant that increased collaboration will also lead to a better Urban Green Space Performance (UGSP).

Urban Green Space Performance (UGSP) can be defined as the out put of green space development and management process which can be measured by quantitative indicator such as total area/person or qualitative indicator such as its environmental, social and economic benefits. The term MSI can be defined as a harmonious collaboration of actors in green space development and management which will influence, can influence, or will be influenced by such an urban green space development to pursue perceived goals. This kind of collaboration can be implemented in all steps of urban green space development and management, from planning and designing up to input for management and financial support.

Another term for MSI is Multi-stakeholder Process (MSP) which was used by

(12)

2 Hemmati (2002; p.2). Hemmati defined the term MSP as processes which aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decision- finding (and possibly decision-making).

Via quantitative content analysis, this study tries to collect and analyze some urban green space development and management projects from previous scientific researches all over the world having experience with MSI. The population of this study is urban green space institution all over the world. The element of this study is “the studies about MSI in urban green space development and management”

themselves while unit of analysis is urban green space institution elaborated in previous studies. The data was searched from three comprehensive databases: ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Picarta by using the combination of keywords related to urban green space development and management and MSI’s aspects.

20.522 journal articles were found based on the combination of urban green space keywords. These journal articles are selected based on their relevant tittles and abstracts and the availability of urban green space performance and MSI indicator that they have in their contents resulting at 29 journal articles with 42 urban green space cases. All of cases in this study are public urban green space projects, meaning that urban green space accessible for public because according to Rodenburg, et al., (2002) p. 3, “the important of urban green lies in public access”.

This study was conducted based on mixed methodology by transforming qualitative data into quantitative measure. Qualitative data such as the indicators of urban green space performance and MSIs indicators found in journal articles are transformed into quantitative measure by giving some numerical codes. This numerical data were further analyzed using quantitative methods to assess whether MSI will lead to a better UGSP and to find some aspects of MSI which influence urban green space performance.

(13)

3 1.2. Problem Statement

Several studies found that involving multi-stakeholders is proved to be important in successful green space (Denters & Klok, 2006; Leach, 2002; Baud &

Danalakshmi, 2007; Budianto, 2007; Iskandarsyah, 2006; Amelia, 2007). In the other hand, other study also found that involving many actors will sometimes need more cost and time and threaten green space existence. Delfin & Tang, (2006) found that privatization of urban green space leads to an exessive development rather than protection.

The success and fail stories of urban green space development and management applying MSI will be influenced by some factors of MSI itself. The previous studies found that the availability of legal basis, good leadership, financial basis, who involved and what the actors do will influence the relationship of MSI and green space performance. Different countries might experience different types and problems of MSI. Therefore, it is important to understand what factors of MSI significantly influencing green space performance in general. Since there is no systematic overview of such factors (they were explained in separated studies), the problem of identifying factors significantly influencing urban green space performance seems to be ill-defined. Identifying such factors, this study tries to fill this gap.

1.3. Objective and Significance

This research aims to collect previous studies about green space development and management having experienced with MSI. Furthermore this study is intended to see whether MSI will lead to a better UGSP and to find what aspect of MSI contributed to this performance.

This study is unique in a sense, as it is among few attempts that a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative analysis is run to determine the factors that influence UGSP. Floress (2009) has also used mixed method to analyze some factors which influence UGSP but she used different technique and focus. Floress

(14)

4 analyzed some factors influencing UGSP focused on socio-economic aspects of urban green space such as population density, wealth and education while this study will focus on MSI’s aspects which influence UGSP.

This study is also different from previous studies in its conceptual framework and indicators to analyze the relationship of MSI and UGSP. Some previous studies which also inspired this study have already developed conceptual framework to assess green space performance. Berkey & Conroy (2000), Lindsey (2003), Floress (2009) assessed greenway plans using general principles of sustainable development such as harmony with nature, livable built environments, place- based economy, equity, polluters pay, responsible regionalism and tourism.

Baycan-Levent, et al., (2004) developed a conceptual framework to assess urban green space performance based on the value of green space in urban area such as ecological, economic, social and multi dimensional values. This study combines all of those principles based on characteristics which are mostly elaborated in urban green space development and management studies.

This study has also a policy relevant. Because of the ill-defined nature of MSI, policy makers have difficulties in framing and implementing an effective policy about green space development and management. Conceptual framework to assess green space performance and identifying significant factors of MSI which influence this performance will help policy makers to make a priority in urban green space decision.

1.4. Research Question

Main questions of this research are

a) Does MSI lead to a better performance of urban green space development and management?

b) What factors of multi-stakeholder involvement significantly influence green space performance?

This question can be elaborated into the following sub-questions:

(15)

5 - Do internal factors of MSI such as structure and roles of stakeholders

influence urban green space performance?

- Do external factors of MSI such as regulation, good leadership and good financial basis also influence urban green space performance?

c) Why do these factors can influence urban green space performance?

d) How do these factors influence urban green space performance?

The main hypothesis of this study is considered as “MSI will lead to a better UGSP”. Furthermore, both internal and external factors of MSI will significantly contribute to this better performance. Internal factors in this study means factors embedded to the actors (actor-centered) consisting of who involved (structure of stakeholders) and what they do (roles of stakeholders) while external factors means other factors outside these actor. Further explanation about these factors will be elaborated in Chapter 2

1.5. Thesis Structure

This study consists of five chapters. The content of each chapter can be defined as follow:

Chapter 1 : Introduction

This Chapter consists of study background, problem statement, research questions and research structure.

Chaper 2 : Theoretical Framework

This Chapter provides theoretical framework explaining General perspective of urban green space, urban green space performance, and some factors influencing green space performance, Multi- stakeholder Involvement and urban green space performance

Chapter 3 : Methodology

This Chapter explains sampling method, method of scoring, descriptive statistic, compare mean, correlation and regression analysis.

(16)

6 Chapter 4 : Data and Analysis

This Chapter describes the characteristic of data, the result of scoring, descriptive statistics, compare mean, correlation and regression analysis, interpretation and discussion about why and how such variables significantly influence green space performance.

Chapter 5 : Conclusion and Recommendation

This Chapter concludes research finding and recommend what should be consider before deciding MSI in green space development and management and recommendation for further researches.

(17)

7 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. General Perspective of Urban Green Spaces

Environmental problems, including green spaces, whether related to its quality and quantity were much found in urban area because of its rapid development.

Throughout the world, the size of urban area has increased during these recent decades. About 50% of world’s population and approximately 76% of those in more developed countries are urban dwellers (Sandstrom, 2002). Altherr, et al., (2007) argue that the nearer public open spaces location to the city centre, the higher the pressure on them.

Because of this background, people start to realize that green space is an important aspect of urban area. Green spaces is public and private open spaces in urban areas, primarily covered by vegetation, which are directly (e.g. active or passive recreation) or indirectly (e.g. positive influence on the urban environment) available for users (URGE, 2001 in Rodenburg, et al., (2002)p. 3).

Nowadays people try to develop more green open space such as parks, green belts, urban forests etc to make the life in harmony with nature. Green spaces are nice examples of positive environmental externalities and play a key role in improving the liveability of our towns and cities (Baycan & Nijcamp, 2004). This key role can be elaborated into several criteria. Baycan & Nijcamp classify those criteria into some perspective as follow:

a) From social perspective

Urban green space can function as a place to do social activities such as gathering, festival, civic celebration, art performance. Urban green space can also provide a playing ground for children and contribute to provide a knowledge and skill, particularly knowledge about environment and nature (Taylor et al., 1995). Furthermore, the collaboration of multi-stakeholder in urban green spaces can build social capital (Teal et al., 1998, Cheng et al., 2006). Urban green space can also support cultural, historical heritage

(18)

8 preservation for instance preserving royal heritage in the park (Barthel, 2005) and preserving prairie style design of a place as its cultural image (Gobster, 1997). In addition, urban green space will also provide an aesthetic experience which indirectly will contribute to human health.

b) From planning perspective

Urban green space can function as a connector or barrier among different land use allocations in urban area. As the connector, green space can provide a network to link residential with business and other area which can improve accessibility and attractiveness of certain place (Tan, 2006).

Well-design network will encourage people to travel by foot or by bicycle so that it can support the idea of smart growth (Scottish Executive, 2001).

As barrier, urban green space can function for instance as noise barrier and provide a visual screen to minimize “a bad view” landscape in urban environment. In addition, urban green space can hinder excessive development of urban area (Hollis, 2002)

c) From economic perspective

Urban green space can be planted as edible landscape (Stocker & Barnett, 1998; Burley, 1995), provide fruits or woods and other urban green production. In addition, the implementation of green space project can provide a job opportunity for local people.

d) From ecological perspective

Urban green space can provide an ecological network as habitat preservation (Sausa, 2002; Erickson, 2004; Ernston et al., 2008). Urban green space can also contribute to microclimatic amelioration by providing a fresh air (Jim, 2000) and water conservation (Stocker & Barnett, 1998).

In addition, urban green space offers some environmental services such as protecting drinking water resource and reducing atmospheric pollution (Nilsson et al., 2007)

Many types of urban green space can be classified into some categories. The classification can be based on land use zone, function, people’s need or proximity of service area. In this study, urban green space projects are classified into several

(19)

9 categories based on their common characteristics. In general, urban green space projects can be classified into:

- Greenways

Greenways are linear open spaces located along natural or man made landscape elements such as rivers, roads, railways and canals (Erickson, 2004). Furthermore Erickson explains that greenways are planned, designed and managed to protect and connect ecological, scenic, cultural and recreational areas. A greenway can exist as trail, corridor, recreational area or linear area of conservation without recreational functions.

- Greenbelt

Greenbelts are broad strip areas consisting of natural or open land surrounding cities or towns areas (Erickson, 2004). According to Erickson (2004), the idea of greenbelt originated from Garden City Movement on early 20th century in Great Britain meant to control urban growth through development restriction in this area. Furthermore, Erickson elaborates that greenbelts are different from greenways in their original pattern.

Greenway patterns follow the linear pattern of landscape feature while greenbelt patterns are influenced by towns or cities boundaries.

- Brownfield Redevelopment

Brownfield redevelopment can be defined as the expansion or reuse of abundant or disused industrial or commercial facilities such as railway, ex- industrial sites, etc (Sausa, 2002; Alther et al., 2007). Brownfield areas are often related to contaminated sites whether it is known or suspected due to their previous land use functions. The brownfield redevelopment was initially intended to commercial or residential uses that provide some economic benefits. But know there is a growing awareness that brownfield is potential for urban greening project as well (Sausa, 2002).

(20)

10 - Neighborhood/community garden

Neigborhood/community garden is garden located closed to residential area and managed by community members. Types of neighborhood/community gardens range from community’s individual plots to communal green space projects which seek to involve community in their development process (Stocker & Barnett, 1998).

- City Park

City park is a kind of urban green space usually located closed to city center. City park provides various function ranging from ecological, economical and social function serving wider area than neighborhood park (Departement of Planning and Zoning, 2000).

- National Park

National park is a pacel of land declared by the national government as public proverty intended to preserve natural or cultural assest (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foresty of Australian Government, 2009).

- Urban Forest

Urban forest can be defined as trees and forest in and around urban community for the physiological, sociological, economic, and aesthetic benefits trees provide society (Konijnendijka, et al., 2006 ). Konijnendijka argued that definitions of urban forestry and urban can be different in different countries and now this definition become more comprehensive, including all tree stands and individual trees in and around urban areas.

2.2. Urban Green Space Performance

Urban green space performance can be defined as the out-put of urban green space development and management process. Performance can be measured using two main criteria; quantity and quality of green space. Quantity of green space is usually constituted as the proportion of green space to total urban areas or the availability of green space per person. For example 8% of Gleisdreieck park in

(21)

11 Germany was allocated as conservation area (Alther, 2007) or the city of Puerto Alegro has 14 square meters green space per person (Menegat, 2002).

Furthermore, the quality of urban green spaces can be measured from several indicators which will be elaborated in the next section.

2.2.1. Some Indicators to Assess Urban Green Spaces Performance (UGSP) In 2004, Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp conceptualized a taxonomy of value for urban green spaces which later used by some researchers to assess green spaces performance. This taxonomy was constructed based on the contribution (roles) of urban green spaces from social, planning, economic and ecological perspectives (which was elaborated in 2.1). Later, Baycan-Levent, et al., (2004) developed an operational taxonomy for evaluation of urban green space performance using the four previous perspectives and added another item, multi dimensional values. This multi dimensional value of urban green space consists of scientific value (education function) and policy value (financial and public function).

UGSP, can also be assessed from its responsiveness to actual issue or the ability to solve the background problem. In 2006, Denters & Klok used “responsiveness”

as one of indicators to assess institutional performance of urban sustainability.

They elaborated that responsiveness is related to goal achievement while sustainability is related to its contribution to economic prosperity, ecology, social cohesion, integration and coordination.

This study combines and adapts some criteria from previous studies to assess UGSP mostly focused on quality and sustainability of green space. Quality of green spaces is related to their contribution (roles) to environmental, economic and social aspects of life (contribution to sustainable development) which refers to Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp (2004) and their responsiveness to actual issues (Denter & Klok, 2006). Furthermore, the term sustainability is interpreted as the possibility of these performances to exist in the future through natural environment, economic and socio-political support.

(22)

12 Combining and adopting those criteria, this study uses five criteria to UGSP as follow:

a) Responsiveness to actual issues

Responsiveness to actual issues indicates the relationship of the project with existing problems/issues: a better project is project which meets its original goal or ability to solve its original problems

b) Sustainability

Sustainability in this context means the possibility of urban green space project to exist in the future due to the three bottoms up support as:

- Natural environmental support: the project will sustain when there is a natural environmental support such as land slope, soil condition, water condition, etc.

- Socio-political support: the project will more sustain when it has socio- political support such as public acceptance and good leadership.

- Financial support: the project will more sustain when it has a good financial basis.

c) Natural environmental benefit

Natural environmental benefits can be classified into:

- Conservation of land, biodiversity, natural habitat: green space project contributes to the provision and protection of natural habitat, for instance the establishment of green network, place for birds to nest etc.

- Improving air quality: green space project can provide a better air quality particularly from plants used in the project

- Improving water quality/minimizing water-related problems: green space project can improve water quality through the ability of plants to absorb water and filter the pollutants. Green space project such as riparian or green space in sloped area can minimize water related problems.

(23)

13 d) Economic benefit

Economic benefits of urban green space development and management can be classified into:

- Increasing property values: the value of property closed to green space location is usually higher than other areas. Brown & Pollakowski (1977) in Rouwendal (2008) found that the greater the open space around community housing, the higher the house price will be. When people realize that the availability of open space closed to their property as important and will contribute to amenity, they will also give more value to the property (Rouwendal et al., 2008).

- Increasing tax base: the establishment of green space particularly recreational green space, housing estate, etc will increase tax base revenue due to the increase of property and land value in that area.

- Increasing tourism revenue: the establishment of green space

particularly recreational green space will increase tourism revenue, not only from tax

e) Socio-cultural benefit

Socio-cultural benefits of urban green space development and management can be classified into:

- Equity: the placement of open space to create more equitable environment.

- Giving knowledge/skill: green space project can provide a valuable knowledge particularly related to basis natural environmental knowledge.

- Accessibility: the establishment of green space project should provide a better access for people.

- Cultural/heritage preservation: green space project can also function as cultural heritage preservation particularly located in heritage site - Aesthetic value: instead of functional, green space project should also

be aesthetics.

(24)

14 2.3. Multi-stakeholder Involvement (MSI)

Many issues today cannot be addressed or resolved by a single set of governmental or other decision-makers but require cooperation between many different actors (Hemmati, 2002; pp 6-7). Those actors, ones who have an interest in a particular decision, either individual or groups can be regarded as stakeholder.

Stakeholder includes people whose personal or professional welfare depends on the outcome of collaboration (Leach, 2002), people who influence a decision, those who potentially influence it or those who will get the effects of such decisions (Hemmati, 2002).

In general, the term multi-stakeholder involvement (MSI) in green space development and management is a process of collaboration, in which two or more actors work together to pursue a common goal. According to Smith (2007), collaboration can be either formal (mandated by the state) or informal, involve many organizations or few, can be vertical or horizontal, and can be intra and inter-organizational. This definition is similar to the term Multi-stakeholder Process used by Hemmati (2002).

Hemmati (2002) p. 19, uses the term multi-stakeholder processes to describe processes which:

a) aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decision-finding (and possibly decision-making) structure on a particular issue;

b) are based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders;

c) involve equitable representation of three or more stakeholder groups and their views;

d) are based on democratic principles of transparency and participation; and e) aim to develop partnerships and strengthened networks between two

stakeholders and among various stakeholders.

(25)

15 Referring to the definition of collaboration by Smith (2007) and MSP by Hemmati (2002), the term MSI in this study is defined as a harmonic collaboration of actors which will influence, can influence or will be influenced by such an urban green space development to pursue a perceived goals. This kind of collaboration can be implemented in all steps of urban green space development and management, from planning and design up to management process.

According to Hemmati (2002), this kind of collaboration emerged in sustainable development’s domain because there is a need for a more inclusive and effective method for addressing sustainability issue. Furthermore, Hemmati argues that Agenda 211 is the first United Nation document which described stakeholder involvement as absolutely crutial for sustainable development. While according to Baycan-Levent, et.a.l, (2002), the provision, design, management and protection of urban green spaces are the priority agenda of sustainability and liveability of human settlement to improve the quality of life. Thus, the emergence of MSI in green space development and management was in line with the popularity of sustainable development.

It is hypothesized that MSI will give some benefits to urban green space performance and all actors. Häring et al., (2009) classify the benefits of multi- stakeholder processes into:

a) Quality

MSI will improve the quality of urban green space because through collaboration different actors can share different knowledge and experiences. MSI will add specific experiences and knowledge of issues that are not easily accessible to others. By involving wide range of concerned stakeholders such as government agencies, non profit groups, planners can develop innovative strategies for protecting land (Ryan and Walker, 2004 in Ryan, et al., 2006; p.174).

1Agenda 21 is the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Development (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/)

(26)

16 b) Credibility

Bringing together groups that do not represent the same interests will increase the transparency and credibility of urban green space projects.

c) Likelihood of impact and implementation

Including multi-stakeholder in urban green space development and management will increase their commitment to green space project due to the feeling of inclusiveness.

d) Societal gains

MSI will provide social capital such as democratic participation, equitable involvement, transparent mechanisms and successful communication among different interest groups. Häring et al., (2009) emphasize that consensus building and joint decision-making can increase mutual respect and tolerance and lead societies out of deadlock and conflict on contentious issues.

Although it has many advantages, it is not argued here that MSI is completely uncontested concept. In fact, in its implementation, several problems have been identified in literature, i.e.:

a) Conflicting of interests

Different actors in urban green space development will also have different interests. Community are usually concerned with a better environmental quality and management while private sectors are mostly concerned with economic benefit (Murdock et al., 2005; Campbell, 2002). A good coordination is very important to manage such different interests.

b) Inappropriate implementation

MSI is sometimes critized as being “talk-shop” or missused as being only as an effort to get legitimation from various actors, lack of gender equality and lack of regional equality (Hemmati, 2002). That’s why, Hemmati explains further that monitoring and follow up of MSI process is important to improve such inappropriate implementation in the future.

(27)

17 c) Trust/transparency

Lack of transparency can lead to the problem of trust in MSI. For instance, in the case of land aquicition for green space in San Francisco Bay, the district was again criticized for expending funds away from the city and purchasing ranch which is not accessible for the public (Hollis & Fulton, 2002).

d) Timeline

Mediating plural interests in MSI often takes more time than involving single actors. However, Hemmati (2002) argues that people also assert to work within the timeline to keep the MSI process focused.

e) Funding

Incorporating different actors with different interest will also need more fund in its implementation. Hemmati (2002) emphasizes that it is important that MSIs are sufficiently funded while should also try to develop fund-rising strategy.

2.4. MSI and Green Space Performance

Several studies found that involving multi-stakeholders or various actors led to a better performance of urban green spaces. A study by Baud & Danalakshmi in 2007 about Governance in Urban Environmental Management states that “multi- stakeholders arrangements between government and other actors are recognized as a major instrument” in urban environmental planning and management (Baud

& Danalakshmi, 2007, p.136). A study by Amelia in 2007 about green space management in Birmingham and Bandung indicates that some of successful factors behind a good performance of Birmingham green space management are good institutional structure and coordination and citizen participation. Budianto in 2007 studied the possibility to transfer green procurement policy from Canada to Indonesia and found that one of the recommendations for Indonesia based on Canada’s experience is the need for a better support from public and private actors in environmental planning. A study by Iskandarsyah in 2006 about EU lessons about environmental institutions of relevant for ASEAN countries found that EU

(28)

18 has a good environmental institution which was built by applying subsidiary concept and involving many parties and stakeholders in decision making and controlling (Iskandarsyah, 2006, p. iii). In addition, a comparative study about development and management of green spaces in 26 European cities by Baycant et al., (2002) suggest that “a collaborative and enable partnership among local authorities, local business and voluntary groups should be formed” (p.10) to improve the quality of urban green spaces.

On the other hand, another studies also found that involving many actors will sometimes need more cost and time and sometimes threaten green space existence. It is not easy to accommodate and coordinate various interests from different stakeholder. A research by Delfin & Tang, (2006) about philanthropic strategic in green space protection, argued that “privatization of open space may cause excessive development density”.

2.4.1. Some Aspects of MSI Influencing Green Space Performance

Some previous studies have analyzed separately some factors related to MSI and UGSP. This study tries to collect those findings and build a conceptual framework to identify which factors have a significant influence on UGSP. In general, this study classifies these factors into internal and external. Internal factors are regarded as factors embedded to the actors (actor-centered) consisting of who the actor is (structure) and what they do (roles). Internal factors consist of other factors beyond actor-center factors.

2.4.1.1. Internal Factors

2.4.1.1.1.Structure of Stakeholder in Green Space Development and Management

UNDP (1994) defines governance as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. Based on UNDP’s classification of institution domain of governance, stakeholders of green space development and management can be classified as bellow: (Figure 2.1).

(29)

19 Figure 2. 1. Structure of Stakeholder

Source: adapted from UNDP (2004) http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy/chapter1.htm#b

a) State

The state consists of the elected government and an executive branch function mainly to control and exert force, be responsible for public services and enable condition for green space development and management by establishing legal regulatory framework. Grey (1996) in Jim (2000) argued that government plays a vital role in balancing conflict of interests among stakeholders and making sure that community’s needs are not neglected. In this study, the state includes all types of government from the local level to the national level.

b) Private sectors

Private sector is part of national economic which is not under direct state control (as defined by OALD, 2005). Private sector runs its activity based on profit orientation. It comprises of bank, enterprises, manufactures contributed to green space development

c) Society

Civil society can be an individual or groups. “Civil society is thus more than just society. It is the part of society that connects individuals with the public realm and the state - it is the political face of society” (UNDP, 2004).

Philanthropists mostly found in American urban green space development is kind of individual society contributed to urban green spaces. While groups

(30)

20 of society can be in the form of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Faith Based Organization (FBOs) and actors from academic institutions.

2.4.1.1.2.Roles of Stakeholder in Green Space Development and Management MSI can be implemented in all steps of green space development and management. (Simonds, 1998) elaborates a scheme of landscape architecture (green space) planning and design for professional landscape architect which can be seen in figure 2.2.

Source: Simond (1998) pp 128-129

Figure 2. 2. The Planning Design Process for Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Engineering

Commission is the preparation step of a project where the planner and client hold an initial meeting to get the same vision about the project. Research is the process when planner gives his/her professional service agreement by collecting all the information needed by conducting site survey, interview, observation of certain

(31)

21 object/ issue/ photograph, etc. This step can also be classified as data inventory.

The next step is analysis where the planner analyzes all the data from inventory process; try to find potencies, constraints and amenities of the site. Base map and supporting file data are output of this step. Synthesis is a comprehensive program based on data analysis, in which the planner formulate schematic studies, comparative analysis, impact assessment, accommodation and consolidation for certain issue and method of implementation. The next step is construction. In this step, the planner develops a preliminaries and estimate cost of the project such as preparing construction and contract document, supervision and punch list check out. The final process is implementation of the project design accompanied by periodic visit to control the implementation, adjustment and improvement, performance observation. This whole process can also be a learning process for the planner to improve his/her capability.

Based on this classification, this study classifies urban green space development into three general steps: planning/design, implementation, maintenance. Planning and design are combined into one category because those processes are in line.

Management aspect of urban green space includes input for management plan and financial support. Explanation of roles of MSI in each step of urban green space development and management can be elaborated as follow:

a) Planning/design

Planning and design are the early process of urban green space development and management. Early involvement of multi-stakeholder is very important because it will create a better view point among stakeholders. Furthermore it can create a strong view of inclusiveness, transparency, equity and commitment among stakeholders (Hemmati, 2002). The role of multi- stakeholder in this step can be seen for instance in collaborative design conducted by university students of Texas, USA who collaborated with home owner association and local government to create a master plan for neighborhood open space (Teal, et al., 1998). Another example is that environmental nonprofit organizations in Los Angeles have also influenced the definition of parks and open space in the area, and shaped the ideology

(32)

22 of what kinds of parks and open spaces are appropriate and where, and affected land-use decisions (Pincetl, 2003).

b) Implementation

In implementation, stakeholders participate in transforming the design into a real green space for instance the construction of parks, tree planting, etc. For instance, Tokyo urban forest restoration project involved citizen and private developer in street tree planting activity (Cheng et al., 2006); birders began working to restore the hedge in the mid-1980s by planting additional honeysuckle shrubs to preserve the birds in Chicago (Gobster, 2001).

c) Maintenance

In maintenance process, stakeholders participate in taking care of existing green spaces for instance by pruning, watering, cleaning and replanting green spaces area. Gobster (2001) gives some example of participatory ecological restoration activities at Montrose Point, Chicago in terms of project maintenance such as pruning and weeding of the Magic Hedge, seeding old road bed with prairie grasses etc.

d) Input for Management Plan and Financial Support

In this category, stakeholders are involved in giving some ideas for green space management or providing financial support for green space development. For instance, the state and philanthropists in San Francisco Bay California provided some funds for green space acquisitions (Hollis &

Fulton, 2002).

The involvement of multi-stakeholder in green space development and management considers all levels of participation based on Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation. Arnstein (1969) classified the level of participation into non participation, tokenism and citizen power. Furthermore, Arnstein elaborated non participation level consisting of manipulation and therapy, enable powerholders to

"educate" or "cure" the participants. In its implementation, non participation equals to top down planning. In tokenism participation, people have opportunity

(33)

23 to be heart/consulted and informed. It implication in green space development and management can be seen in integrating community’s input in green space design.

In the level of citizen power participation, citizens get a chance to enter a partnership and get delegated power or get the power of major decision making (full managerial power). A partnership between government and developers in developing recreational open spaces is an example of this type of participation.

This level of participation is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Source: Arnstein (1969)

Figure 2. 3. Ladder of Participation

2.4.1.2. External Factors

2.4.1.2.1. Legal Basis/Regulation

Regulation about green space becomes a legal basis to trigger green space development and management. Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp (2004) argue that based on the result of several case studies, development and management of urban green spaces have a critical need for policy. Policy can be a signal of potential collaborative commitment among stakeholders, so that, by committing to the policy, governments can reduce uncertainty and gain cooperation with various stakeholders (Smith, 2007). Furthermore, Smith argues that green space policy will provide an excellent opportunity for collaborative partnerships since very few local governments are able to protect land without the help of outside partners such as NGOs and private sectors.

(34)

24 2.4.1.2.2. Good Leadership

A good leadership is a key issue to the success of collaboration efforts in greenway planning (Ryan et al., 2006). It is also applicable for urban green open space in general. Furthermore Ryan et al., argue that it is the duty of leaders to manage the collaboration effort and empower the stakeholder. That’s why, it is important for the leaders in collaborative process to have skill, relationships and vision to manage stakeholder interest into perceived goal (Foster-Fisherman et al., 2001 in Ryan, et al., 2006). Heinelt, et al., (2006) suggest that urban leadership will facilitate and secure community involvement contributing to positive policy outcome.

2.4.1.2.3. Good Financial Basis

Hemmati (2002) argues that many MSIs (MSP or Multi-stakeholder Process in his terms) encounter funding problems. Many collaborative projects were hindered by lack of funding. For instance in the case of greenway development in Ottawa, administrative and financial constraints caused the greenways plan has been somewhat stalled and none of the corridor are fully completed (Erickson, 2004).

That’s why, It is important that MSPs are sufficiently funded and that developing fund-raising strategies and targets are part of the design process, taking into account the requirements of various stakeholder groups (Hemmati, 2002; p. 120).

According to Fletcher (2009), basically urban green space development and management need two kind of funds: capital and revenue. Capital consists of fund to pay the construction, improvement, renovation and equipment while revenue str funds to pay for the general maintenance and staffing. Because the availability of funds is important, it is important for urban green space manager to find alternative sources of funding through partnerships, trust, local charges and taxes.

Fletcher (2009; p.5) also argues that in urban green space development and management, high quality is not always the result of high spending. City planners can reduce funding for instance by choosing low maintenance wild flower in green space design. But we cannot ignore that the availability of funding is

(35)

25 important in every step of development including urban green space although it will not always quarantee the success story of such a project.

2.4.1.2.4. Capabilities of stakeholder

Skill and basic knowledge of the stakeholders will also influence their contribution to green space performance. A study by Brody et al., (2004) which measures the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida found a positive correlation between wealth and plan quality. They argued that wealthier, resource rich population will contribute to higher plan quality due to better planning staffs and development.

2.5. Conceptual Framework

The conceptualization of the framework of urban green space performance indicators and MSI’s aspects which influence urban green space performance can be concluded in Figure 2.4. Capability of stakeholder is not included in this framework because it will not be used in further analysis due to the difficulty to quantify this indicator from the secondary data.

(36)

26

Green space performance

Responsiveness

to actual issue Sustainability

Natural environmental

benefit

Economic benefit

Socio-political benefit

The relationship of the project with

existing problems/issues

Natural environmental

support

Conservation of land, biodiversity,

natural habitat

Increasing tax base

Equity : placement of open space to

create more equitable environment

Socio-political support

Financial support

Improving air quality

Improving water quality/

anticipating water related problem

Increasing property values

Increasing tourism revenue

Accessibility : increase access for

people

Aesthetic Value/

amenity

Scientific value/

giving knowledge/

improving skill

Therapheutic value Jobs related to

maintenance or construction of such areas

Cultural/heritage preservation Multi-Stakeholder

External Factors Internal Factors

Regulation about green space Good leadership Good financial basis

Structure of stakeholders

Role of Stakeholders State

Private Society

Planning/design Implementation Maintenance Management/finance

Figure 2. 4. Indicators of Urban Green Spaces Performance and MSI Source: Drawn by Author

MSI’s Indicators

Urban Green Space’s Indicators

(37)

27 In general, Figure 2.4 classified all indicators into broad categories consisting of indicators of MSI and indicator of urban green space performance assessment.

Circle shapes indicate the classification of indicators while rectangular shapes indicate the measured indicators.

(38)

28 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This study uses mixed method in its analytical process. Tashakkori & Teddie (1998; p.17) define mixed method studies as studies that combine qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research methodology of a single study or multiphased study. Tashakkori & Teddie argue that one of main data analytic strategies in mixed methods is converting qualitative data into quntitative data or vise versa. Referring to scenarios of mixed method developed by Ulin et al., (1996) in Tashakkori & Teddie (1998; p.44), this study will use qualitative measures to develop quantitative tools (quantitizing technique) as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3. 1. Qualitative Measures to Develop Quantitative Tools Source: Ulin et al., (1996) in Tashakkori & Teddie (1998; p.44)

Although adapted some methodologies and conceptual framework from other authors, the technique used in this study is unique in a sense as it is among few studies using mixed methods to analyzed urban green space development and management, particularly focused on the relationship of UGSP of MSI. The following part of this chapter will explain the steps of this methodology.

3.1. Population and Sample

The population of this study is urban green space institution all over the world.

The element of this study is “the studies about MSI in urban green space development and management” themselves while unit of analysis is urban green space institution elaborated in previous studies2. Since all of the data depends on

2Babbie (2007) defines population as the aggregation of elements from which the sample is actually selected, unit of analysis as people or things whose characteristics observed by social researcher and element of the research as unit about which information is collected and provides the basis of analysis. Element is used in data selection while unit of analysis is used in data analysis.

Qualitative Quantitative Result

(39)

29 the result of previous studies, sampling will be much influenced by the availability of relevant studies, meaning studies having the information or characteristics needed in analysis (Little et al., 2008).Data Collection

All of the data used in this study are secondary data searched from Isi Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Picarta. Isi Web of Knowledge and Scopus are the comprehensive databases which link to other databases such as Elsevier, Sagepub, Ebscohost and Willey Interscience. Picarta is Dutch Database which also links to Dutch university libraries and other databases such as Informaworld and Willey Interscience. Journal articles found in one database will sometimes also be found in other databases so that they overlap each other, resulting in large number of journal articles at the beginning (20.522 journal articles). However, this process will avoid the possibility of losing important information.

To get focus on data searching process, some inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed (Table 3.1). Based on its objective, this study will only select journal articles which talk about urban green space development and management (encompasing several types of green space) while also deal with MSI in their projects. To get a broader insight, this study will include all cases from both developed and developing countries.

The data were searched by using some combination of key words. The word

“green space” is sometimes being used in different term in different studies such as “greenspace”, “open space”, and “urban park”. These five terms are combined with key words related to multi-stakeholder involvement such as “participatory”,

“participation”, “governance”, “stakeholder”, “partnership”, “collaboration”,

“institution”, “management” and “planning”. Some of those key words seem too general but they were used in order not to miss some relevant studies.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Three focus group discussions were also carried out (see figure 2.2). The aim of the pilot study was to get a general feel of how the interview and group discussions will go, to

Given the fact that South Korea highly values ethnic homogeneity, linking national identity to ethnicity, and many Koreans still believe in the idea of a shared bloodline and a common

Voor een bedrijf zonder recirculatie van drainagewater en daarmee ook geen bassinwaterlozingen, is de totale potentiële emissie in grammen is het hoogst voor afvoer van het restant

Because this organization has been operational for 33 years, offers volunteer trips to 15 countries in the Global South, is established throughout the Netherlands,

Our research question is: do the Institute Evaluation Mechanisms (IEM) and practices implemented by the three institutions help to balance interests and expectations of the

Cognitive challenges at the crime scene: The importance of social science research when introducing mobile technologies at the crime scene.. de Gruijter, Madeleine; de Poot,

To further illustrate the security concerns originating from North Korea’s behaviour, I have decided to conduct a case study on North Korea’s 2013 Nuclear Test. This

All in all, the general view here is that for supervisors without migration background (supervisors of the Municipality of Alphen aan den Rijn, Both ENDS,